[Music]
For over a hundred years, the cosmological story has been the story of the Big Bang,
gravity and relativity. But what if that story is wrong?
And what if a new cosmological story and model is emerging? What then? How might a change in cosmology
and the cosmological narrative, impact today's society and contemporary culture? To explore
these questions we must first look at the concept of paradigm shift.
Paradigm shift is one of these terms that we hear a lot of lately.
But what exactly is a paradigm shift? Well, to begin, a paradigm is the dominant theory in any
given discipline at any given time, and a paradigm shift happens when the dominant theory is
replaced by another one. The term paradigm shift was coined by the physicist and philosopher of science
Thomas Kuhn in his seminal work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
In his book, Kuhn challenged the common conception of science, which was that science was a steady
progression of the accumulation of new ideas. In a series of reviews of past major
scientific advances, such as those ushered in by Galileo, Newton and Einstein,
Kuhn was able to show that this viewpoint was wrong. For Kuhn,
”...science advanced the most by occasional revolutionary explosions of new knowledge,
each revolution triggered by introduction of new ways of thought
that are so large and so different they must be called new paradigms.” In other words, a paradigm
shift is scientific change that is forced to happen.
For Kuhn, a paradigm shift happens over a process or a cycle, and it has very distinct stages. These
stages are, Pre-science – This is a pre-stage, where the field or discipline
has no workable paradigm to successfully guide its work. Then we have: 1. Normal Science – The normal
step where the field has a scientifically- based model of understanding
that works. Then: 2. Model Drift – Here the model of understanding begins
to drift, due to the accumulation of anomalies and phenomena that the model simply
cannot explain. After model drift, we enter: 3. Model Crisis –
At this stage, the model drift becomes so excessive that the model is essentially broken. It
can no longer serve as a reliable guide to problem solving.
And any attempts to patch the model up and make it work, fail.
At this stage, the field is in anguish. After model crisis comes: 4. Model Revolution –
This begins when serious candidates for a new model emerge. It's a revolution because the new model
is so radically different from the old. Finally, we arrive at 5. Paradigm Change –
Here a single new paradigm emerges and the field changes from the old to
the new paradigm. When this step ends the new paradigm becomes the new Normal Science
and the Kuhn cycle is complete. Overall the cycle looks something like this:
Pre-Science – Normal Science – Crisis - Revolution – New Normal Science – New crisis –
New Revolution. And it continues. Can you guess what stage we are
currently in? Well, looking at the present discourse on cosmology and at scientists’ own words,
it is becoming apparent that we are in the midst of the Kuhn Paradigm Shift cycle,
and appear to presently be well within the Model Crisis stage.
Today the biggest topic in debate cosmology definitely seems to be cosmology itself.
Mainstream science magazines and non-science magazines
are full of headlines suggesting that cosmology is in deep trouble.
While scientists have been aware of a crisis in cosmology since at least the 1990’s,
in very recent years, that awareness has increased exponentially. As Eric Lerner has shown,
in 1995 there was about one reference every year to the crisis.
By the beginning of the 2000’s it went up to 5 references per year,
and then 12 references by the middle of the 2000’s. By the second part of the present decade
it was about two dozen references per year. But then in 2019, it shot up to 130
references per year. That is a drastic increase in just the last two years.
This upward trend can be interpreted as a strong indication that we are at Kuhn’s crisis stage.
While scientists do not agree on the nature of the crisis, there is definitely a growing
general awareness, both in cosmology and the mainstream media,
that there is a crisis. I found that many mainstream articles and videos
deal with one or both of the following, as it relates to cosmology
and the Big Bang model. 1. Anomaly - meaning something that deviates from what is
standard, normal or expected, and/or 2. Contradiction - meaning new information,
measurements, observations and/or findings, that undermine, contradict and/or oppose
the major principles, assumptions, and expectations of the Big Bang theory
in some way. In Kuhn's paradigm shift model, when there are a little bit of anomalies
and contradictions, then the dominant model or normal science can be said to be
in a state of drift. When too many anomalies and contradictions accumulate,
which the model cannot adequately explain or fix, then the model is in a state of crisis.
The over-abundance of mainstream material dealing with the ever-increasing
anomalies and contradictions in contemporary cosmology,
including from very well- known, non-scientific sources
like Forbes and Business Insider, suggests that we have definitely reached a crisis
point. Drawing on Kuhn, this implies that the Big Bang model is broken
and cannot be fixed. I will leave it to the natural and physical scientists
to discuss and debate the nature of the cosmological crisis,
but as a discourse analyst, I wish to make some observations about the articles and
videos themselves. While many of the articles and video
titles mention, quote “a crisis in Big Bang cosmology”, their content and conclusions do not
question or problematize the Big Bang as one might expect,
though some do give lip service to the possible need for a new physics,
when compared with the titles, the conclusions are disproportionate at best
and apologist at worst. With a couple of sources, even concluding that contradictions in
the Big Bang model are strengths, because they open the door for
”new and exciting areas of research within the Big Bang model.”
Talk about doubling down on a broken theory. Now in critical discourse analysis,
this can be identified as a problematic discursive strategy,
wherein the tone of the article's titles do not match the tone of the article's
content and conclusion, thereby misleading the reader. This is a
sneaky rhetorical device, where the reader is led to assume one thing from the title,
only to end up with an altogether different, and even contradictory
conclusion at the article's end. Rather than really address the crisis of Big
Bang cosmology in a meaningful way, many of these sources downplay it,
or even double down on it, thereby shielding it. Some going as far as to characterize
anomalies and contradictions that undermine the Big Bang model, as
strengths rather than flaws. Now as a side note, even if editors are just using the phrase,
”crisis in cosmology” as click bait with no intention of actually addressing it,
the very fact that so many people, both within science and in the popular mainstream culture,
want to know or read about a cosmological crisis, can be interpreted as more proof that
the Big Bang may be losing credibility. Another bizarre claim made by mainstream
sources about cosmology, is that the universe is far more strange or weird
than we originally thought, and that this is why there are so many anomalies and contradictions
that the Big Bang cannot address. This type of deflection is especially interesting, because it
blames the failures and inadequacies of standard cosmology on the cosmos,
rather than the model or theory. An internet search brings up numerous titles
dealing with the ”strangeness or weirdness” of the universe. Quote “the universe is stranger than we
thought”, ”our solar system is even stranger than we thought”, “the universe turns out to be
much bigger and weirder than anyone thought”, ”unexplained phenomena keep suggesting
the universe isn't what we thought”, etc. etc. etc. This rationalization,
that the universe is stranger than we thought, is increasingly repeated in
popular science magazines and websites. Repetition is another device that is
used in dominant discourse and texts, one that can create a false sense of
authority and truthfulness, because when something is repeated often
enough it takes on an air of truth that can mislead readers into agreeing with
false conclusions. The repetition of a false or speculative reality,
in this case that the universe just keeps getting weirder and weirder,
prevents the reader from entertaining an alternative reality
such as, the Big Bang is not adequately equipped to address the anomalies and
contradictions of its field. The emphasis on weirdness ultimately
negates the crisis in Big Bang cosmology and prevents deeper discussions of the
implications of the crisis. It's interesting to point out that in
the pre-Big Bang era of the enlightenment, any claim that the universe was just too
weird to understand, would have been considered laughable.
After all, the prime mover in the age of reason, would never create a universe that was
irrational. So why is it not only tolerated today, but exclaimed
and celebrated? The universe's weirdness, or non-conformity,
is accepted because of the attitudes that resulted from the cultural changes
ushered in via the application of relativity to the non-scientists and
broader culture in the first place. Because of these cultural changes and
the acceptance and celebration of relativistic and paradoxical thinking,
there appears to be an inability to consider weirdness and strangeness
as critical warning signs of fundamental theoretical errors and problems. But under Kuhn's analysis,
the acceptance and celebration of weirdness, or paradoxical thinking,
are just further indications of a model in crisis. Within Kuhn's framework, doubling down on
a broken model, or blaming the model’s inadequacies on the strange and wacky universe,
are all things that we could expect from a model that is dying.
But no matter how they try to spin it, given everything we discussed, there is
no denying that standard cosmology is a model in crisis.
[Music]